HUGE Mr Sulu Spoiler

[Guy Gardener]

His support was a no brainer, I was more interested about his novel turning into nonsensical gibberish.... Which PAD seems to have been fine with since the Kelvin universe started in 2009.

Thank you for the information.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

Personally (and I don't have the time to go back and read this entire thread, so maybe others have already said this), while I respect George a lot and usually agree with him, I find his reasoning in this instance to be very strange. I can get that Gene was maybe a friend of his and that he could have some personal feelings about seeing his friend's work (or even, potentially, his own work) altered, even in a minor way. But that's just the way things are. The only way to ever avoid that is to retire those characters altogether. And really, the changes that have already been made in this reboot (for instance to Spock and Uhura) absolutely dwarf the idea of Sulu being gay in terms of actually changing the basic concept of the character.

Not to mention the whole 'make a new character' argument is pretty weak in the context of this particular current franchise, which is already filled with main characters that don't get much to do, because these are primarily adventure movies where character beats are secondary and (like TOS, but unlike most of the other Trek installments) they're not even actually ensemble pieces in the first place (Half the time, the supporting cast is basically fan approved window dressing). Any new character would probably wind up being completely lost in the shuffle.

 

[Guy Gardener]

(This is from my brain, which might explain George's bahaviour.)

1968, George Takei and Gene Rodenberry are quite very drunk.

"Gene, I think Sulu should be gay on the show. It'd be a land mark, it'll be revolutionary, hell, think of the ratings! Me making out with some hotguy, and Bill crying because I got all the good lines that week. It'll be so groovy! F##k Bill Shatner!"

"George, George, George, CBS isn't going to let me do that, ever, there's no point in even asking, hell even they're not dumb enough to sniff through one of my clever allegories or metaphors about how queers are people too. They'd fire me and cancel the show. That's just bad business!"

"I'll wrestle you for it?!"

"You think you can wrestle me?"

"I'll pin you in 60 seconds old man, and you'll like it!"

"Why I oughta..."

Which is when they both take their shirts off and try to wrestle each other into submission. Obviously, sadly young George must have lost, which is why Star Trek, after dominating Takei, felt no obligation to notice that Gay Rights weren't such a hot potato for the next 40 years.

 

[JN2849]

^ Myk, that's enough. Let's drop it and move on.


Because I asked you to.


This is a discussion forum, yes, and there's a term for what you're doing here. It's not "playing devil's advocate". It's called thread-shitting -- a tactic meant to disrupt and derail -- and that's against the rules.


No, you are not to assume that, and -- as has already been pointed out -- that is an argument no one has been making.

Frankly, I would rather have done without the "homophobic fanboys" crack altogether. Unfortunately, it's there, but the thread does not need to be about that, and it will not be. Now, along with everyone else, pack up and move beyond it.

I wasn't "thread-shitting." I'm not quite sure I even know what that means. Is there a section in the user agreement where I can find a section about this?

I was responding to fellow posters about why I thought it wasn't just homophobes who disagreed with this creative decision. As far as I know, I did this in a civil manner. I wasn't rude or offensive or insulting. Asking someone to substantiate a claim you disagree with is pretty standard when it comes to intelligent discourse. I'm sorry if this angered any of you, as it wasn't my intent.

 

[Cake]

In case anyone is interested in the reactions of the public on a general site, the Guardian had two articles about this with a lot of comments under them.

First one with Pegg disagreeing with Takei. Over 1400 comments under it.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/20...-sulu-after-george-takei-criticism?CMP=twt_gu

The most recommended comment is this one with 278 upvotes by the way:

"The only crime here is a lack of imagination by writers. Hmm- George Takei is gay so let's make the character he played gay. Why not make Kirk gay? That would be progressive."

And there is an opinion piece of a Guardian writer, who sides with Pegg. Right now over 600 comments under it, but the number might still climb higher.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/10/george-takei-gay-sulu-star-trek

 

[Mudd]

It's become predictable in fan debates that when folks objecting to a creative choice by writers and producers have nothing else to say they default to calling the choice lazy and/or unimaginative.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

In case anyone is interested in the reactions of the public on a general site, the Guardian had two articles about this with a lot of comments under them.

First one with Pegg disagreeing with Takei. Over 1400 comments under it.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/20...-sulu-after-george-takei-criticism?CMP=twt_gu

The most recommended comment is this one with 278 upvotes by the way:

"The only crime here is a lack of imagination by writers. Hmm- George Takei is gay so let's make the character he played gay. Why not make Kirk gay? That would be progressive."

And there is an opinion piece of a Guardian writer, who sides with Pegg. Right now over 600 comments under it, but the number might still climb higher.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/10/george-takei-gay-sulu-star-trek

Usually the recommendation online is to avoid the comments sections of news, blog, and video sites like the plague because you will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. I've rarely seen them used as evidence for establishing normal public sentiment before.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

I wasn't "thread-shitting." I'm not quite sure I even know what that means. Is there a section in the user agreement where I can find a section about this?

I was responding to fellow posters about why I thought it wasn't just homophobes who disagreed with this creative decision. As far as I know, I did this in a civil manner. I wasn't rude or offensive or insulting. Asking someone to substantiate a claim you disagree with is pretty standard when it comes to intelligent discourse. I'm sorry if this angered any of you, as it wasn't my intent.

Seriously, man, you need to move on from that argument. Literally no one but you was saying it was only homophobes opposed to this. Enough. Drop it. You've been told about ten times now. This is not a hill that's worth dying on.

 

[Cake]

Usually the recommendation online is to avoid the comments sections of news, blog, and video sites like the plague because you will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. I've rarely seen them used as evidence for establishing normal public sentiment before.

As it is unlikely that there will be a big professional survey about this, reading different sites and comments which are written by different people, is still the closest you can get to a more overall view. Representative? For sure not though. I agree with you there.

Either way there are worse places out there than the Guardian comments section. They do moderate them and don't allow everything. And although the articles attracted unsurprisingly a certain amount of people, who are clearly homophobes, there are a lot of other people who wrote their opinion there, too.

 

[Mark 2000]

That's not your decision to make, though. If you feel something needs to be addressed, notify on the post and let the mods deal with it. Telling people to STFU will earn you a warning..

I didn't tell him the STFU. He suggested it. I agreed. You're a mod who is obviously reading this thread. What good would my reporting anything be if you've seen it already?

More often than not I find that when it's used in online debates —especially controversial ones— it's so the person can get away with saying something offensive and then when they're called it by others hide behind the devil's advocate excuse like it wasn't their actual opinion.

Last I heard stating an opinion you don't believe or don't care that much about just to get a rise out of a forum group is called "trolling".

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Since several people seem to be having difficulty with the concept, let me explain something. When a mod tells you in an official capacity to drop a line of discussion or not do something, it's not an invitation for a long drawn out negotiation on the subject, an argument, or rules lawyering in the thread. If you've got a complaint, take it up with the mods via PM. If you're not satisfied with their answer, take it up with the admins via PM. If you don't like an infraction, take it to the MA forum after contacting the mod first. Do not continue to belabor the point in the thread, or you will get an infraction. Half this thread has been people telling the mods how to do their jobs or arguing with their attempts at doing it. Enough already.

 

[BillJ]

I think this thread would be more entertaining had the OP named it "YUGE Mr. Sulu Spoiler".

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

If anyone in this thread needs representation, I am available.

You can find me on Starbase 11...

 

[Locutus of Bored]

If anyone in this thread needs representation, I am available.

You can find me on Starbase 11...

 

[m.lp.ql.m]

I guess that makes George Takei a homophobe as well, huh?

He very well could be. I've yet to run into a gay man, especially those who've lived through the 80s, including myself, who doesn't have at least a tinge of internalized homophobia. Takei's LGBT visibility and activism has helped many people, and I wouldn't be surprised if some of his motivation is to excise his homophobia. However, he doesn't speak for all LGBT. He's mostly just click-bait now.

 

[Devon]

"The only crime here is a lack of imagination by writers. Hmm- George Takei is gay so let's make the character he played gay. Why not make Kirk gay? That would be progressive."

Of course, this person may not realize (or conveniently forgot for the sake of writing a post that they thought was 'witty') that the last two films have established that Kirk is a LADIES man.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

Simon Pegg expands more on the creative decision on Sulu and why they went against George Takei's reservations: http://simonpegg.net/#2817

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Simon Pegg expands more on the creative decision on Sulu and why they went against George Takei's reservations: http://simonpegg.net/#2817

I know similar conversations are happening at hundreds of other Trek and scifi forums around the internets, but I swear some of those remarks he describes sound like they were lifted straight from this thread.

As always, I'm impressed with what an articulate, astute, reasonable, and entertaining advocate for Trek and his point of view Simon Pegg is. I'm thrilled to have his passion for and knowledge of Trek and the genre as a whole in the writer's chair.

 

[Amaris]

Simon Pegg expands more on the creative decision on Sulu and why they went against George Takei's reservations: http://simonpegg.net/#2817

I'm glad Sulu is gay. I'm tired of gay fans of the show being promised one day they'll be represented on Star Trek, only for it to be pushed back, and back, and they get nothing out of it. Finally, one of the main cast, and not a special "I'm gay" actor role that will be shown in this movie and whisked off never to be seen again, is gay, and they will be loved and accepted by the rest of that main cast, and they will be treated like human beings.

If that's not what Gene Roddenberry wanted, if that's not what he was about, then it's his loss. He has been dead for 25 years. Society needs to move forward. Star Trek should represent that very idealism. Good work, Simon.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

I'm glad Sulu is gay. I'm tired of gay fans of the show being promised one day they'll be represented on Star Trek, only for it to be pushed back, and back, and they get nothing out of it. Finally, one of the main cast, and not a special "I'm gay" actor role that will be shown in this movie and whisked off never to be seen again, is gay, and they will be loved and accepted by the rest of that main cast, and they will be treated like human beings.

If that's not what Gene Roddenberry wanted, if that's not what he was about, then it's his loss. He has been dead for 25 years. Society needs to move forward. Star Trek should represent that very idealism. Good work, Simon.

This.